CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 février 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA248AC04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } Published on 9 March 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 40175/15 Andriy Olegovych SKACHKOV and Others against Russia and Ukraine lodged on 14 August 2015 communicated on 17 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The circumstances of the case The application arises from the international armed conflict in the east of Ukraine that began in the spring of 2014. It concerns the alleged unlawful detention and ill-treatment of Andriy Olegovych Skachkov (the first applicant), who at the material time was a member of a volunteer battalion “Donbas” supporting the Ukrainian Armed Forces. It also concerns the alleged lack of access of his parents, Nataliya Valeriyivna Skachkova and Oleg Borysovych Skachkov (the second and third applicants, respectively), to their property situated in Donetsk. Concerning the first applicant According to the first applicant’s account, he was captured by Russian Armed Forces on 30 August 2014. On the night of 30 August 2014 he slept in the open air in a Russian Armed Forces camp. On 31 August 2014, together with other captured members of the volunteer battalion “Donbas”, he was transferred to units composed of “Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”) militants. From there he was transferred to the former building of the Department of the Security Service of Ukraine in Donetsk region (“SSU”). The captives were lined up in rows in the building’s inner courtyard and were surrounded by journalists and bystanders. They were verbally abused and humiliated while their ordeal was filmed by the journalists. Afterwards, the applicant was taken to the former SSU building’s basement. He submitted that at the entrance he was kicked and forced to trample on the Ukrainian flag. The premises were damp and lacked natural light. The ventilation and sewage systems were broken and the nutrition was insufficient. He alleged having been kicked, punched and severely beaten with batons and rifle butts by “DPR” militants on numerous occasions. They trampled on him, forced him to do push-ups and reloaded their firearms demonstrating their intention to execute him. On two occasions they subjected him to mock executions. In November 2014 the applicant was taken to the Rostov region of the Russian Federation where he was questioned, allegedly by representatives of the special services of the Russian Federation. On the next day he was taken back to the former SSU basement in Donetsk. On 3 December 2014 the applicant was transferred to SSU archive premises which were overcrowded and lacked fresh air. He slept on archive shelves. On 26 December 2014 he was transferred to another SSU archive room with similar characteristics where he was detained until 21 April 2015. The applicant alleges having been forced to clean up the wreckage and recover the bodies of the soldiers killed in the Donetsk airport between January and April 2015. The applicant submitted that in April 2015 he was charged with the “offence” of “participation in punitive battalions and organised gangs” under the “DPR” Criminal Code. Between 23 April and 28 July 2015, he was held in Donetsk pre-trial detention centre (“Donetsk SIZO”). In Donetsk SIZO he was beaten on several occasions. On 28 July 2015 he was released from Donetsk SIZO and brought back to the SSU building. He was placed in a separate cell under the staircase. On 29 July 2015 the applicant was transferred to a cell of the “Luhansk People’s Republic” (“LPR”) military unit no.   44444 in Luhansk and was held there until 23 August 2015. Between 23 and 27 August 2015 the applicant was held in the Donetsk SSU building. He was released on 27   August 2015. After his release the applicant was examined in a hospital. He was diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries and concussions, chronic cholecystitis, chronic prostatitis, rhinitis and a cyst of the maxillary sinus. On 18 March 2015 and 25   February 2016 the applicant’s lawyer filed criminal complaints with the Ukrainian police and the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office respectively, reporting the circumstances of the detention and the ill-treatment of the applicant. On 1 September 2015 the Ukrainian authorities instituted criminal proceedings into the applicant’s detention. On 13 August 2015, the applicant’s lawyer filed a criminal complaint with the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation (“IC RF”) about the applicant’s detention and ill-treatment. When there was no response, on 15   October 2015, the applicant filed another criminal complaint with the IC   RF, reporting that he was detained and tortured by “DPR” militants. He received a reply dated 15 December 2015, stating that the IC RF prepared a request for legal assistance to be submitted to the Ukrainian authorities under the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters of 1993. Concerning the second and third applicants The first applicant’s parents, namely the second and third applicants, submitted that they were abducted and ill-treated on 21   August 2014 by armed militants who enquired with them about the whereabouts of the first applicant. They were released on an unspecified date and time. Soon thereafter, namely on 24 August 2014, these two applicants fled Donetsk out of fear for their lives, leaving their house in Donetsk behind. The applicants’ complaints Complaints against the Russian Government (a)    By the first applicant Relying on Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention the applicant complains that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty and detained in inhuman and degrading conditions, and that he was ill-treated and subjected to forced labour by “DPR” militants who forced him to clean up the wreckage and recover the bodies of the deceased soldiers in Donetsk Airport. (b)    By the second and third applicants These two applicants complain under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they are unable to use their property in Donetsk due to fear of persecution based on political opinion. Referring to Article 13 of the Convention, they complain that they did not have effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. Complaints against both respondent States by the first applicant Referring to the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complains that the domestic authorities of the respondent States failed to carry out an effective investigation into his ill-treatment. Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicant complains that both respondent States failed to provide him with an effective remedy as regards his Convention complaints. QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT 1.     Have the applicants complied with the requirements set forth in Article   35 § 1 of the Convention, as in force on the dates of introduction of their application?   2.     Has the first applicant been subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 3 others, § 1083, 9 July 2025)?   3.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman and degrading treatment, has an effective investigation been conducted by the Russian authorities into the alleged ill-treatment of the first applicant, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, §§ 315-326, ECHR 2014 (extracts)?   4.     Did the material conditions of the first applicant’s detention amount to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (ibid., § 1080; see also Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§   136 ‑ 41, 20   October 2016)?   5.     Was the first applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty fall within paragraph (c) of this provision (see Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.   29750/09, §§ 97 and 104-7, ECHR 2014)?   6.     Do the facts complained of by the first applicant amount to a violation of Article 4 of the Convention (see Ukraine and the Netherlands v.   Russia , cited above, § 1093 and 1099)?   7.     Can the second applicant claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? The applicants are requested to provide the Court with official documents proving her title to the property in Donetsk.   8.     If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, and in any event, have the second and the third applicants been unable to use their property in Donetsk out of fear of persecution (see, mutatis mutandis , Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, §   201, ECHR 2015 and Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, §§ 241-42, ECHR 2015)? If so, (a)     was the interference in accordance with the principle of lawfulness, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? (b)     was the interference proportionate to the aim pursued or did it impose an excessive burden on the applicants?   9.     Have the second and the third applicants had at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   APPENDIX List of applicants:   Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth Nationality Representative’s name Location 40175/15 Skachkov and Others v. Russia and Ukraine 14/08/2015 Andriy Olegovych SKACHKOV 1990 Ukrainian   Nataliya Valeriyivna SKACHKOVA 1968 Ukrainian   Oleg Borysovych SKACHKOV 1968 Ukrainian Alina Viktorivna PAVLYUK Kyiv